ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Mailvox: the disqualification game

Stuck in the 1990s, Truth seems to think that successfully tarring someone with "raciss" is still a form of effective disqualification as he attempts to convince Tom Kratman to denounce me for my crimes of BadThink:
And how about if the claim of "ignorant half-savage" is based on Vox's tribe-to-society ratio or whatever it is he calls it? Would you consider that genetic and therefore racist? Because as I recall, he professes that blacks haven't had enough time to adapt from savage to social, generationally speaking. Which, is to say, he believes savagery runs too thick in their genes. Would you consider that racist Mr. Kratman?

I feel like your character is a higher quality than that. Of course, I have only the slightest evidence for that feeling. But I'd like it to be true. I'd love to be able to read a local sci-fi author who's published through a major outlet. The only other I know of in this area code is Rod Belcher and I enjoyed his work. I'd probably enjoy yours. I'm just not one of those folks who can separate art and artist.
Disqualify... disqualify... disqualify. I find it amusing that Truth appears to think Tom is sufficiently naive to fall for the rabbiting. But neither Tom nor I care what a Random Internet Rabbit defines as "racist". By Truth's lights, Tom is already disqualified because he admitted to being scientifically literate about genetic science.

Truth then addressed me:
I notice Mr. Kratman didn't include, "calling black people ignorant half-savages is not racist." What say you, Vox? Cultural or genetic marker? In the past you've said genetic. If not, correct me.
I will first ask a question of my own, which Truth will answer if he wishes to participate in the discussion: Truth, do you assert that there is not a single black individual in the U.S.A. who is an ignorant half-savage?

Now, in answer to Truth's question, and contra Tom's position, my observation is that you cannot possibly separate culture and genetics. It is logical to conclude, and it has been repeatedly observed, that cultural differences are derived from genetics. A society with an average 85 IQ will inevitably feature a very different culture than a society with an average 115 IQ. Among other things, the lower IQ culture will have shorter time preferences and its social mores will feature less consideration of the logical consequences of an individual's actions. This is why secular progressives tend to equate intelligence with higher forms of civilization.

But it is also logical to conclude, and it has been also been observed, that genetic differences are derived from culture. A society where women have children at an average age of 18 will have genetically superior children to those produced in a society in which women have children at an average age of 35. Even something as purely cultural as the average number of children a woman bears will have tremendous genetic implications; there is reason to believe that some of the differences between r/selected and K/selected are genetic, and those genetic differences are, in part, derived from the culture that produces them.

(It must be made clear that this is NOT related to TENS in any way. We're not dealing with the differences between species here, but intra-species differences for the most part and partial sub-species differences at most. Nor is most of the selection naturally imposed.)

In any event, the trivial thinkers who look at my time-to-civilization hypothesis and focus on its racial implications aren't seeing its true scope, much less grasping the potential horror of it. The much more serious aspect of the hypothesis is its implication that civilization is the consequence of a centuries-long eugenic program that eventually, and inevitably, transforms itself into a dysgenic program. If the hypothesis holds, this would not only explode, once and for all, the secular conceit of linear progress, but would provide an elegant explanation for the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations as well as the observed inability of Africans to collectively reach a self-sustainable civilized standard despite the best efforts of well-intentioned individuals of various races for more than 150 years.

And if the fact that I occasionally contemplate such things offends you to the point that you don't wish to read anything that I write or edit or publish, well, that leads to the obvious question: what in the name of the 1,200 sister-wives of Shaka Zulu are you doing here? Especially in light of Truth's self-admitted anti-intellectual outlook:
I can deal with the economics, military policies, and other right wing stuff, but dismissing an entire race of humans as ignorant half-savages is beyond my threshold. The history of such thought has given rise to countless atrocities.
First, Truth's personal thresholds do not dictate objective reality. The only thing that matters is if the observation is true or not. In this particular case, there is a considerable quantity of evidence supporting both the singular example provided, as well as the current state of civilizational progress of the human sub-species concerned. Second, we are discussing the collective mean here. In any group with more than two individuals there will obviously be those who exceed the mean, but that is totally irrelevant in this context.

As for the appeal to historical atrocity, has it never occurred to Truth that it is reality that dictated those atrocities and not the mere observation of the reality? He is assigning causal value to a consequence. If the savage behavior of a group of savages leads another group to wipe them out, it is not the second group's belief that the first group was savage that was the causal factor, but rather, the fact that first group was a) savage, and b) aggressive.

To give one example, Julius Caesar would never have killed one million Gauls and enslaved another million had Gaius Marius not been forced to defend Rome from repeated invasions from the north 50 years prior.

Labels: , ,

147 Comments:

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:12 AM  

"and contra Tom's position,"

It's not as contra my position as might appear at first glance. The difference is that a) I consider it an aspect, but a non-dispositive one, because, b) I would phrase it as "you can't be certain of telling the difference between what is genetic and what is cultural." Someday we may be able to, but not just yet. I don't think. Best we can do is guess.

I've already commented on my skepticism toward standardized testing and IQ testing. That doesn't mean that I don't think g exists; I just doubt our ability to measure it well. (I will not be crushed if nobody believes it, but, folks, I can say that from a position of considerable strength.)

But far worse, and perhaps even more in accord, there was an intervening event here that wrecked our blacks, most of them, who were probably genetically intellectually superior to most African blacks (possible exceptions or equals being Ibo and Ethiope) and were doing fairly well, really. And that disaster, that showa, that holocaust wasn't slavery, it was liberalism. Liberalism destroyed the fairly functional culture they had. Does that show up in genetics? After 3-4 generations I would be surprised if it did not. How many superior blacks were enticed away to honkyland? Shitloads. What did that do to the gene pool left behind and abandoned? Nothing good.

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 5:18 AM  

It is also interesting to observe how Truth tries to sow discord and get Kratman to disagree with you. Aside from not understanding just how close your position and Kratman's are in this matter, the silly rabbit just doesn't understand that men can actually disagree with one another without resorting to out-grouping and accusations of badthink. What a strange, sad little world he must inhabit.

The much more serious aspect of the hypothesis is its implication that civilization is the consequence of a centuries-long eugenic program that eventually, and inevitably, transforms itself into a dysgenic program.

If k-selection leads to delay of children, special-k kids might just be the result. Have you looked at a millennial hipster wanna-be lately? It takes a while and a lack of outside challenges to get there, though. It does tie in with Glubb Pasha's observations on civilizational cyles.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 5:22 AM  

I would phrase it as "you can't be certain of telling the difference between what is genetic and what is cultural."

I completely agree. It is mostly due to the historical strength of the Nurture Only crowd, which has only recently been routed by advances in genetic science, (and is still trying to slither their way back into the room), my focus on the importance of genetics is often mistaken for genetic determinism. But, as I've shown, the two are intertwined, perhaps inextricably.

who were probably genetically intellectually superior to most African blacks

And are 22 percent genetically European, on average. The point you raise is additional evidence in support of the conclusion that our civilization has passed its eugenic peak and is no longer capable of civilizing its inhabitants, but is actually decivilizing them.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:22 AM  

Well, Stil, it was so obvious it _was_ rather insulting.

Blogger The Original Hermit April 02, 2014 5:24 AM  

"dismissing an entire race of humans as ignorant half-savages"

If I'm not mistaken, the original claim is that the majority of blacks (specifically African natives) are actual savages, while those living among Civilization are on the spectrum of partial savage to fully civilized.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:27 AM  

Nurture only-tabula rasa-blank slate was always wishful thinking by genetic defectives and moral morons, narcisists and would-be demigods.

It's, as you say, a horrifying conclusion, but it is even more horrfying given the last tenth or so of The Bell Curve.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:29 AM  

TOH:

There's also Vox's definition of savage, which is intertwined with an inability (or, in the case of liberals, a studied unwillingness) to reliably link cause and effect.

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 5:29 AM  

But far worse, and perhaps even more in accord, there was an intervening event here that wrecked our blacks

Highly incentivized leftism that created an extreme (and self-reinforcing) bias towards r-selection. Sobering to consider just how fast it can happen. Especially when you consider the converse position and likely outcome.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:35 AM  

I should have said "the majority of our blacks."

Note, though, that there's been another effect, Stil. Those blacks that were enticed away were a) superior stock, who b) were pretty close cousins already, and c) have further tended to intermarry with us. For one familial example, check out Vince and Leo (Jr) Brooks, and their dad. Oh, and their sister.

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 5:38 AM  

Well, Stil, it was so obvious it _was_ rather insulting.

Indeed, but I suspect that, in his world, the merest whiff of heretical thought is enough to bring out the long knives, so he assumed it would be so everywhere irrespective of how clumsy his efforts. He thought he was tossing a hand grenade between you and Vox. He never imagined that the two of you would pick it up, explain to him that it was actually a baseball (see those red stitches, son?) and proceed to have a pick-up game with it.

Blogger Tommy Hass April 02, 2014 5:43 AM  

I doubt that blacks were that much better than now before LBJ. They were considered to be inferior WAY before it became unkosher to call them niggers.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 5:53 AM  

Learned that in Turkey, did we, TH?

Anonymous Luke April 02, 2014 6:22 AM  

Good idea for a bumper sticker:

"Why can people be born irrevocably homosexual, but can't be born unchangeably stupid or violent?"

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 6:30 AM  

That's insufficiently succinct.

Educate the Gay Away

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 02, 2014 6:37 AM  

I was of the "nurture only school" myself until quite recently. Then I read a study that showed the Ainu people of Hokkaido belong to a genetic haplo-group that never invented fire on their own. They could use it, no problem but if it went out, they were in trouble.

Innovation, I had always assumed, was a pan spectrum, human trait. It appears that innovation is in fact genetic.

Yes, this is a peer reviewed and carefully worded study.

Anonymous Albert April 02, 2014 6:44 AM  

I will note that older black men _tend_ to act far more civilized than the rising generation(although political leaders tend to be about as criminal as any lefty politician). So, yeah, LBJ's racist agenda has had the usual effect that bread and circuses have on the mob.

Anonymous Steve April 02, 2014 6:44 AM  

It's extremely refreshing to see men of Mr. Kratman's and Vox's caliber and positions in society speaking like this again,i.e, emphasising the importance of objective and observable facts over the preferred politico-religious dogma of the age. It reminds me of an earlier age when innovation and innervation,rather than degeneration, was happening in the West. Back when Nasa was a space program and not a Muslim outreach program shilling for the cheap labor lobby.

Of course, to people like the Truth person you are referring to, the return of such a period of growth and discovery is met with the same horror and screaming lunacy with which the protagonist of an H.P. Lovecraft story would greet the imminent return of the Great Old Ones from R'Lyeh.

Anonymous The Great Martini April 02, 2014 6:50 AM  


If the hypothesis holds, this would not only explode, once and for all, the secular conceit of linear progress, but would provide an elegant explanation for the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations as well as the observed inability of Africans to collectively reach a self-sustainable civilized standard despite the best efforts of well-intentioned individuals of various races for more than 150 years.


Which well-intentioned individuals are you referring to? King Leopold maybe? Rhodes?

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 6:54 AM  

I was thinking more of men such as David Livingstone and Norman Borlaug.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 6:55 AM  

Innovation, I had always assumed, was a pan spectrum, human trait. It appears that innovation is in fact genetic.

Basic logic fail. If the capacity for innovation is not distributed evenly in individuals, it cannot possibly be distributed evenly across groups.

Blogger Tommy Hass April 02, 2014 7:11 AM  

"Learned that in Turkey, did we, TH?"

Germany.

It's not like it isn't true. Didn't Abe say something along those lines?

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 7:13 AM  

As an aside, is this "Truth" character the same bumbling twit who haunts Sailer's threads?

I have a problem with the word "savage" to describe a society rather than, say, an individual's savage assault on another person, as is chronicled daily over at SBPDL. "Savage" seems vague and ambiguous in a lot of ways. The Romans were highly civilized, but engaged in some exceedingly savage practices. The Mayans and the Aztecs had reasonably high levels of civilized organization, but their beliefs and practices were savage to the core. The aboriginals of Tasmania lived on an island but had forgotten how to sail and fish. I doubt they were as brutal as the Aztecs or the Romans, but their primitive way of living is pretty durn savage. The word is problematic, as it's a stand-in for say five or six other words in various combinations. We need to make better distinctions if we're going to discuss these matters with any sort of clarity.

Also: "Julius Caesar would never have killed one million Gauls and enslaved another million had Gaius Marius not been forced to defend Rome from repeated invasions"

It's been many years since I read that sort of stuff, but that claim doesn't sound historically supportable to me. If it were true, why invade Britain and Belgium? Caesar was a man of huge ambitions, and he needed a lot of money and a large reputation to finance his ambitions, and so the conquest of lots of new turf, and the gold to be had from slave markets, sounds like as much or better a motivation for his wars in the north. But those who are more learned on the subject, please add commentary.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 7:17 AM  

"If the capacity for innovation is not distributed evenly in individuals"

When I was a kid, both I and one of my brothers were rather mechanically inclined. The difference was, he could fix cars and repair machinery with ease, which I wasn't so good at; but I could build robots from scratch, and he didn't have a clue. The world's a funny place.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 7:18 AM  

"I will note that older black men _tend_ to act far more civilized than the rising generation"

Well, they lived under a lot more social constraints and pressure. Ever hear what those guys say when they think no white folks are in earshot?

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 02, 2014 7:21 AM  

Uneven distribution was one thing. Acknowledging non-existence of a mental trait, within a genetic haplo-group was a red pill.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 7:24 AM  

It's been many years since I read that sort of stuff, but that claim doesn't sound historically supportable to me.

His personal ambitions notwithstanding, Caesar would not have had Senatorial support to raise legions and attack the two Gauls if Rome had not been terrified by the previous incursions.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 April 02, 2014 7:27 AM  

It's mainly speculation.
You don't have 6000 years worth of DNA to sequence.
And even if you did no-one can run control variable experiments on this stuff.

Third point. Even if you could "grow geniuses", a Frankenstein scenario, who'd argue they wouldn't be the first to try to kill you?

Epi-genetics can cure them, or let's develop smart pills, is the better direction to head in.

Also. A country can successfully exist as multi-ethnic, not multicultural. IMHO
Christianity isn't merely a cure. cheers

Anonymous Cranberry April 02, 2014 7:30 AM  

Not surprising that Truth cannot separate artist from art. If he bothered to actually read Kratman or Day, he wouldn't be able to appreciate their work.

Tom, I've only read Big Boys Don't Cry so far, but I'm picking up more of your books soon. I must tell you, I was horrified and saddened by the story, but found myself agreeing in general with your portrayal of man. In a few short pages you managed to capture the scope of humanity's history of war, loss, victory, and the consequences of "peace" and the purposes to which men will turn a peace-time army. Just a terrific story.

Spend some time in an inner city classroom and you'll see plenty of evidence of the savage-civilized continuum. I worked two years in an inner city high school, teaching English (sometimes actually teaching the basics and use of the language, not just literature). I had a class of 10th grade students who were reading at about a fifth or sixth grade level. It wasn't that they had been failed by past teachers, it's just that they only progressed to that point and found it difficult to get beyond it. The kids weren't particularly bright and that made them very belligerent, and angry at having to do work beyond their ability level.

Now, to ask them to qualify their belligerence in such a way would have elicited confusion and probably more anger, but they were limbless swimmers, struggling to stay afloat. No amount of time or money or personal energy on the part of a teacher or community was going to mold their brains into anything better than that.

Some said the school unfairly sorted kids (it was a charter school) because the lower performing kids were all in one class and the higher performing kids in others, based on their test scores. I'll give you three guesses as to the racial composition of those class rankings. Two guesses don't count.

The Arab, Turkish, and hispanic kids tended to do better overall. I won't lie that there was more than raw intelligence affecting the students, but stable marriages and family life are markers of a sustainable culture as well, underpinned and reinforced by the very intelligence that is either present or absent in great quantity in a population.

Anonymous Marellus April 02, 2014 7:42 AM  

Mr Kratman.

This is completely off topic, but I must ask you this :

In your Carrera-books, you mentioned that Carrera's son is worshipped by a tribe of people. And from the way you write one can deduce that such a tribe of people would be located in the Middle East.

Is this fictional device based on a real fact ?

Are there indeed a tribe in some Mountain-stan who worships Alexander The Great, and is awaiting his return with a concomitant set of prophecies ?

It tickles me pink, and I love reading your books.

Keep it up.

*************************************************************************

My question with this assertion of Vox, about some cycle between barbarity and civilization is this :

If one set of circumstances inevitably leads to another, is this like a sine-wave moving up and down from zero ?

Or is it like, say, The Dow Jones, where periods of progress alternate with periods of range-boundedness, and 50% retracements ... essentially building a base for next period of progress ?

Is this what is implied ?

Because if it is a sine-wave, then we're freakin doomed, whereas with the phenomenon of The Dow, it won't be nice, hell there will be people (and nations ?) that loose everything and start jumping out of windows, but we will survive ... and prosper again.

Blogger tz April 02, 2014 7:49 AM  

Oh those savage unborn babies - our civilization needs to keep killing a million - one of four like the Aztec civilization.

And on the 18th, ask yourself if Jesus would have thought Rome civilized. Or the followers who became lion chow in the Coliseum. The glory or gory that was Rome?

At least define civilization and savagery. The same way that avoids the semantic shell game. Right now, it seems to be what we do vs what they do - identical acts, different actors. The winners get to call themselves civilized.

Abraham Lincoln represented which? Wilson? Bush?

I've already noted I consider the problem as spiritual over material. I don't dismiss generational blessings and curses. But that isn't genetics though it correlates.

I might argue Jesus is the answer, but I need the question.

Or is PZ's and Dawkins paradigm being assumed? God doesn't exist as far as culture and civilization are concerned? That belief in Christ and conversion changes nothing regarding civilization vs savagery. Or as I noted, eternity is the ultimate time preference.

Anonymous Cranberry April 02, 2014 7:50 AM  

And right on cue, Coates is back to claim America's deeply embedded racism (so deep, you don't even know it's in you) is to blame for black poverty.

College was a while ago for me, but they never, ever look up out of their study carrels, do they? This is the kind of stuff I was hammered with in the late 90s. There has been no evolution of thought on these matters (at least in academia) in almost 20 years, and longer I suspect since this ball got rolling in, what, '68? Or should I go back as far as 1789?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 7:58 AM  

Sad to say, Marellus, I made them up...but not entirely, either. There exists in Afghanistan and Pakistan (though maybe extinct in Afghanistan by now) a group of people called the Kalash. They are pagan polytheists (as opposed to, say, Christian polytheists), with some odd customs, like, forex, legitimate wife stealing. (It's not a big deal, just pay the price.) They tend to blond and ginger and light eyes. Genetically, they're apparently some offshoot of Persian / Indo-Aryan, IIRC, but they insist they have the blood of some of Alexander's soldiers in their veins. They've been under pressure from the Moslems for a long time. Some do convert (or revert), but I am skeptical of their sincerity for a couple of reasons. That they haven't given up suggests a certain toughness and bravery. The other source of inspiration was the tribe in The Man Who Would Be King.

They're an interesting people and culture and some of the women and girls are apparently rather fetching.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 7:59 AM  

A country can successfully exist as multi-ethnic, not multicultural.

Not for long, it cannot. See: Austro-Hungary. Once one ethnicity ceases to be dominate, the collapse is certain. People point to Switzerland without realizing that its extreme decentralization and segregation is the reason it has survived and thrived despite its multi-ethnicity.

If one set of circumstances inevitably leads to another, is this like a sine-wave moving up and down from zero ?

I hope not, but I am a bit concerned about the fact that our written records only go back about 8,000 years. It is entirely possible that the cycle is longer than we realize and goes all the way down to zero. There are some hints of this in archeology and the written record.

God doesn't exist as far as culture and civilization are concerned?

This is not a theological matter. If God intervened, there will be signs of it. And certainly Christianity has helped boost civilization while post-Christianity is observably dysgenic. But the entire New Testament points to God not being overly concerned with the politics of the world.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 8:01 AM  

Your logical problem there, Tommy, is at least threefold. For one thing perception is not necessarily reality. For another, there are degrees, even where perception is close to reality, and there are exceptions to the norm.

They were pretty solid citizens, most of them, until ruined by liberalism.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 8:06 AM  

Thanks, Cranberry; glad you liked it. Note, I have two kinds of books, dark and darker. Sometimes they're funny (M Day is funny, Yellow Eyes and The Tuloriad have their moments) but, even then, the humor is gallows humor.

Anonymous Cranberry April 02, 2014 8:18 AM  

Gallows humor, right up my alley Tom. I look forward to reading more.

Tommy Haas, if you haven't read any Zora Neale Hurston, you might want to check out some of her novels. Sula and Their Eyes Were Watching God treat the subject of black communities in the pre-civil rights era. The protagonists are women and some might say the novels are distinctly feminist - about as much as, say, Austen's novels are "feminist." Hurston was an anthropologist and ethnographer, and the real stories she recorded greatly informed her fiction.

Black communities had successful marriages, broken marriages, adequate schools, hierarchies based on - wait for it! - the color of one's skin and his business success, functioning economies and entertainments that suited the people who sought enjoyment.

The characters in her novels don't harbor much resentment against whites, and white people are not really featured in the books. Rather, the black communities themselves are treated as units in which any human problem can (and does) exist, and how the people relate to it. The Civil Rights movement came in and said "hey, these communities and economies you've built? They're inferior, you could have so much more if only you left and got a piece of the white pie."

I would say that, by and large black people were treated with indifference rather than outright hostility, but that was dependent upon geography and how concentrated the black population was in a given area. Much like today, but I wasn't alive in the CRE and my family left Newark after the first riot threatened to take my mother's life. White flight is self-preservation, which I suppose means my grandfather is a horrible racist for depriving black people of his presence and that of his children who could have done so much to raise them up, no?

Anonymous Joe Doakes April 02, 2014 8:26 AM  

The more civilized a society becomes, the sooner it will collapse? There's a continuum from Total Savage (Somalia) to Right On The Brink Of Collapse (San Francisco)? Somewhere about half-way would be ideal?

Texas?

I could buy that.

Anonymous Marellus April 02, 2014 8:41 AM  

There's a continuum from Total Savage (Somalia) to Right On The Brink Of Collapse (San Francisco)?

How is San Francisco on the brink of collapse ?

Can you elaborate ?

Anonymous dh April 02, 2014 8:47 AM  

I will note that older black men _tend_ to act far more civilized than the rising generation(although political leaders tend to be about as criminal as any lefty politician). So, yeah, LBJ's racist agenda has had the usual effect that bread and circuses have on the mob.

Uhh, well, this is how the world is. It's not racial or even human behavior. Go out to study an animal population of any pack or social animal. After a male has past it's physical peak, it becomes a low-status hanger on to the new leader. Typically, until the male loses all of his physical strength, he has a sort of benevolent but low-status existence. The new alpha and upper beta's will give a little bit leash to the past-prime alpha's and beta's, to the extent they are docile.

What you are seeing is similar. You can't expect a 65 year old man to be still going with black nationalism and all that. That is a young man's game, and there is some evidence that it was all about, err, sexual influence anyways. And the other big kicker is, by then, the man is retired, and no longer a low-wage, low-skill, low-brow laborer, but a retiree, living off his government check. Hard to be a radical when you are suckling from the man for your daily bread.

Anonymous dh April 02, 2014 8:48 AM  

How is San Francisco on the brink of collapse ?

Can you elaborate ?


This part of the right wing fantasy where California and especially Gay San Francisco is about to melt away to nothing. San Francisco is doing pretty well by a lot of standards.

Anonymous Marellus April 02, 2014 8:51 AM  

Mister Kratman,

My thanks to you for your response. It was illuminating. The little that I do know of the area, is that there is speculation that the Pashtun Tribe might in fact be one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

Apparently, they are divided into ten sub-clans which mimic the lost tribes; they have customs which precedes Islam and which have Old Testament connections - I thinks it's their lighting of candles and putting it under baskets over week-ends, and their names are peculiar.

The Rabbi which gave this lecture, mentioned a gun-toting Pashtun who goes by the name 'Haifa' - a very common name amongst them.

Strange.

Anonymous The Dude April 02, 2014 8:53 AM  

Even Booker T. Washington recognized that the Negro race needed uplift. He was a loyal race man, God bless him, but he knew the raw material with which he had to work. And, God bless him, he buckled down and got to work. There is still much work to be done.

And the unwillingness of Talented Tenth Negros like Truth to admit the painfully obvious, to roll up their sleeves, and to get down to work is not just unhelpful, it is bad.

When Truth says that Vox condemns "an entire race" he really means "Vox condemns me". This is the perennial anxiety of the Talented Tenth. They live their whole lives reading the newspaper and watching the news and internally cringing when some crime is reported: "Lord, don't let it be a Negro!" Because they know THEY would never do such a thing, yet they know the white folks will be looking at them and thinking ... something. Likely something bad. At times they almost want to jump out of their skin and shout, "It ain't me, dammit! I would NEVER do that! I'm not like them! I was raised better!" But the white folks aren't talking. They are smiling, acting nice. So you just can't blurt out stuff like that. You'd look like a crazy man. But it eats at you, knowing what the white folks are all thinking but not saying. And for many black folks, particularly those black folks that get as far from the ghetto as they can, the ones that go live in "good" (aka "white") neighborhoods with "good" (aka "white") schools the feeling is even more intense. They are safe, sure, but they are surrounded by white folks thinking their secret thoughts all day, every day.

Booker T. Washington dealt with it not by denying race differences, but by recognizing them, accepting them, and committing himself to raising up his race, to improving their education, their morals, and their behavior. He was a better man. Better than most. And he didn't spend his days worrying about what the white folks thought. Who cares what white folks think?

Blogger Glen Filthie April 02, 2014 8:55 AM  

Very interesting debate, if done in an intellectually honest way.

My experience, based on dogs, horses and humans is this: training trumps genetics every single time, without fail. Black culture used to be devout Christianity, hard work, and tight families. They used to be a dime a dozen. Thanks to your 'rabbits', liberals and race whores - the exact opposite predominates today.

You take a white kid, drill him in basketball 24/7/365 - and you will see white men that CAN jump - as high as higher than most negroes. Take a Negro out of the slum, give him a supportive and loving family and he will grow up productive like any white kid. Genetics only come into play when we get into the top percentile of a population - where they perform at such high levels that, given the right genetics - it might give the individual a slight edge over those that don't.

You CAN make a formidable guard dog out of most breeds. You can make cuddly lap dogs out of pit bulls and Dobermans. The old nickel goes that 'You can take the boy out of the nigger, but you can't take the nigger out of the boy. It is simply not true.

And, I hate to say it...but the ghetto gurus are right about it being Whitey's fault. We let blacks act like animals and make excuses for it. The chimpanzee in the Whitehouse is gutting the economy and people are still making excuses for him. His wife and entourage go on expensive vacations while middle class families can't make ends meet.

The sad, politically incorrect truth is that the racists are right about quite a few things, and the politically correct progtards are wrong about pretty near everything. When blacks are held to a higher standard - their behaviour will improve.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 8:58 AM  

I don't know about the ten lost tribes, but there are alleged to be some Jewish descended sorts that still retain all kinds of Hebrew mannerisms and customs, even though Islamic now.

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 9:00 AM  

They were pretty solid citizens, most of them, until ruined by liberalism.

This is an interesting claim, far from certain, but it seems like it's hard to pin down because history now starts at 1968. Anything before that is considered so tainted by racism and other -isms that it can't even be discussed.

Anyway, I've said before that movies like Let's Do It Again portray a black culture that fits your claim -- maybe not as wealthy as the white culture of the time, but flourishing with its own middle- and working-class citizens, business owners, churches, organizations, etc. If that's what it was really like, it's easy to see how people thought all blacks needed was a helping hand to catch up with whites and they'd be fine.

On the other hand, you can go back and find magazine articles and letters to the editor decrying black culture for having high rates of crime, sloth, and other degeneracy long before liberalism came along to poison it. Not just in the South, either.

I don't know how to reconcile those views. The liberal view, of course, would be that the latter view was entirely the invention of racist whites trying to keep blacks down. On the other hand, if the older stories were true but began to be quashed and wiped from the history books by liberals, then the Cosby/Poitier portrayal must be a fantasy.

Or could it be that both are true: blacks did well and were civilized in some communities, and not so much in others, perhaps depending on the expectations of the surrounding whites?

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 9:02 AM  

When blacks are held to a higher standard - their behaviour will improve.

Conversely, when whites are no longer held to their traditional standards, their behavior will degrade. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out a few decades ago, blacks are the canaries in the USA coal mine.

Blogger David April 02, 2014 9:06 AM  

The question of nature vs nurture is answered immediately once one has more than one kid.

It's also obvious to any (of the rare, thoughtful, open-minded) grade school teachers out there. Silk purses and sows ears.

Anonymous Will Best April 02, 2014 9:06 AM  

I will note that older black men _tend_ to act far more civilized than the rising generation(although political leaders tend to be about as criminal as any lefty politician). So, yeah, LBJ's racist agenda has had the usual effect that bread and circuses have on the mob.

Black men old enough to remember the Civil Rights movement personally, are over 60 which would put them in the upper 1/3rd in terms of longevity for their generation. Length of life has a positive correlation with good genes.

Blogger Outlaw X April 02, 2014 9:09 AM  

Someone define "half savage." Savage half the time? In the mid point between "savage" and "civilized?" "Savage" in the presence of certain company?

Blogger David April 02, 2014 9:10 AM  

@VD, Moynihan's "defining deviancy down" is an apt description of what we see everywhere in popular culture, no?

Blogger Booch Paradise April 02, 2014 9:12 AM  

Among other things, the lower IQ culture will have shorter time preferences and its social mores will feature less consideration of the logical consequences of an individual's actions.

Just spit balling an idea here, but isn't it possible that the shorter time time preference, at least at the individual level, isn't so much a preference as an inability to consistently successfully carry out plans extending as far into the future? So my idea would be that in individual with a lower IQ would be more likely to not consider important factors that would affect whether or not their long term plans could be achieved, and thus fail to achieve long term plans, and then logically choose to not plan as far ahead. So it wouldn't be that they prefer instant gratification so much as that they are more frustrated in achieving any other kind.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 9:22 AM  

@VD, Moynihan's "defining deviancy down" is an apt description of what we see everywhere in popular culture, no?

Yes.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 9:24 AM  

"Take a Negro out of the slum, give him a supportive and loving family and he will grow up productive like any white kid."

Yes. Like Philip Chism, for instance. Right?

Anonymous xxx April 02, 2014 9:24 AM  

so is half-savage more racciss than full-savage?

is dropping a wall on the head of fag more homophobic than telling them to piss off about their wedding cake?

Anonymous xxx April 02, 2014 9:26 AM  

"They were pretty solid citizens, most of them, until ruined by liberalism."

Tom: Have you read Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell ??

Anonymous The other skeptic April 02, 2014 9:29 AM  

Maybe he is just back from attending the 15th National White Privilege Conference

Blogger IM2L844 April 02, 2014 9:42 AM  

isn't it possible that the shorter time time preference, at least at the individual level, isn't so much a preference as an inability to consistently successfully carry out plans extending as far into the future?

I think that is sort of right but I think short time preferences are the result of an inability to correctly predict likely chains of events from any particular action or circumstance. When a person has demonstrated to themselves the ability to correctly anticipate long term consequences, they will quite naturally develop long time preferences. My humble opinion is that this happens at a very young age and may be highly influenced by genetic components.

Blogger CM April 02, 2014 9:46 AM  

Cail,

Anyway, I've said before that movies like Let's Do It Again portray a black culture that fits your claim -- maybe not as wealthy as the white culture of the time, but flourishing with its own middle- and working-class citizens, business owners, churches, organizations, etc. If that's what it was really like, it's easy to see how people thought all blacks needed was a helping hand to catch up with whites and they'd be fine.

I have had this view of old-school black culture, myself. Largely propagated by movies like The Earnest Green Story. Certainly there were troublesome groups - there are in every sub-group, aren't there? But the rural Bible Belt still seemed to retain some of this from what I've perceived (Alabama, North Florida, rural GA). Its hard for me to cypher out what is true and what I've been told to believe. I'm a bit of an old-school abolitionist at heart (from all that underground-railroad reading as a child) and Wilbeforce and Newton are a kind of hero to me. I've lacked a certain amount of interest to distinguish between myth and truth until recently, as I have to figure out the theme to pass on to my own children.

On the other hand, you can go back and find magazine articles and letters to the editor decrying black culture for having high rates of crime, sloth, and other degeneracy long before liberalism came along to poison it. Not just in the South, either.

On this, the idea that the South should have higher crime is kind of a misnomer from how I've understood it. Southerners had less prejudiced views of African-americans because they had spent generations with them. Northerners were highly prejudiced because, to them, AAs were foreigners and alien - and what does human nature dictate when a new, large, strange group props up nearby? Be suspicious.

Or could it be that both are true: blacks did well and were civilized in some communities, and not so much in others, perhaps depending on the expectations of the surrounding whites?

I would think this is true.

Do we have better records of how Italians, Russians, and Irish acclimated to American society when they came in groups? Did they behave better in certain environments than in others (4-Corners)? And what if they came in smaller groups? Did they fare better when families left to go west, isolating themselves from their "group"? And because they are white and not black, its probably been considered more heavily because there's no PC police involved.

Anonymous The other skeptic April 02, 2014 9:54 AM  

"Teaching is a political act, and you can't choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it," Radersma said during the session. "And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn."

Whoa. That is so true ... and she does not realize the reality.

Blogger El Borak April 02, 2014 9:55 AM  

Outlaw X: Someone define "half savage."

A person who is able to exist within a civilized culture but is unable to build or sustain that culture. Vox applied it to Jemison IIRC because even though she can live and make a living in the US, she's a magical thinker - one who does not really grok cause and effect.

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp April 02, 2014 9:56 AM  

"a black culture that fits your claim -- maybe not as wealthy as the white culture of the time, but flourishing with its own middle- and working-class citizens, business owners, churches, organizations, etc."

Well, let's see. Let's assume that's true. So, the Civil Rights Act gets passed in what, 1964 or so? And within four years (viz., by 1968) they were very busy, not blossoming with new-found freedom, but rather, rioting and burning down every city where they had numbers, forming insane bloodthirsty militant groups, and raping every white girl they could get their hands on. Within four years. That wasn't long enough for the insanely destructive Great Society to wreak its generational havoc, that was the historical equivalent of an eye-blink. Not sure what it says, but it does say something.

Blogger JartStar April 02, 2014 10:00 AM  

The records probably only go back 8000 years because about 12,000 years ago the last ice age ended. That's why some people put Noah's Ark 30,000-50,000 years ago.

Blogger Marissa April 02, 2014 10:07 AM  

They were pretty solid citizens, most of them, until ruined by liberalism.

Liberalism, as classically defined. Voting rights, legal equality, etc.

Anonymous Josh April 02, 2014 10:14 AM  

No I think he means liberalism in the modern sense. Welfare and affirmative action and that basket of goods.

Anonymous Toby Temple April 02, 2014 10:18 AM  

In conservative 3rd world nations, the label "liberated" has a very negative connotation when applied to a woman.

Blogger Marissa April 02, 2014 10:24 AM  

I know what he means, Josh. I'm saying what I mean. Liberalism of the welfare and basket of goodies type cannot be divorced from the voting rights and legal equality type. The latter leads to the former.

Anonymous Just Passin' Thru April 02, 2014 10:27 AM  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592988/Infant-10-months-dies-mothers-boyfriend-threw-flight-stairs-forcibly-crib-causing-deep-brain-injury-rib-fracture.html

Blogger Marissa April 02, 2014 10:29 AM  

I should clarify, maybe the latter doesn't always lead to the former. For instance, small, ethnically homogenous populations can probably hack any political system, like the Scandinavians and socialism before they invited the Third Worlders in. But then, that begs the question, how did it get to the point where they allowed the 3Ws in? Maybe even republicanism is ruined from the get-go.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 02, 2014 10:30 AM  

Marellus April 02, 2014 7:42 AM
Are there indeed a tribe in some Mountain-stan who worships Alexander The Great,



reverence for Alexander is rife throughout Asia Minor, even amongst the Muslims.

of course, the Muslims always did like themselves a great conqueror.

Blogger Scott X April 02, 2014 10:31 AM  

I would argue that the behavior of blacks during their "golden age" was better then it is today for only one reason. If they misbehaved back then they often ended up on the wrong end of Whitey's rope or spending the rest of their lives in the big house. Justice was swift and harsh. This enforced discipline bred some degree of self-discipline, hence the lower bastard rate, more marriages, more employment, etc.

Today the rope is long gone and our black\hispanic friends have returned to their natural state: short time-preferences, emotion over thought, animal urges, etc. God help us all.

Blogger Matamoros April 02, 2014 10:33 AM  

First, Truth's personal thresholds do not dictate objective reality.

The old, "how much truth can you handle?", function.

A Plate of Shrimp: Not sure what it says, but it does say something.

There is the factor of their "white face" that Blacks put on while around Whites, which leads Whites to think they are like them.

In majority, or largely, Black groups they drop the mask and one can see the reality of Black whatever.

Pre-Civil Rights Black families were mimicking Whites, particularly in the South because White culture demanded that. Nothing wrong with mimicking, but when the mask drops (such as we recently saw with Colin Powell) one has a chance to see what is really there.

Lothrop Stoddard wrote about this, and its danger for our civilization in "The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man" way back in 1922.

Download at: http://www.ebooks-library.com/login/download.cfm?ThisBook=ATLS002.pdf&extension=pdf

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 10:35 AM  

The question of nature vs nurture is answered immediately once one has more than one kid.

Or if you've ever been a kid. I can look at my parents and the ways in which they tried to train me, both overtly and through example, and see that some stuck and some didn't. In some ways I'm very like them, but of course genetics would have predicted that anyway. But I have traits which are very unlike them, and those are very stubborn -- not only were they unable to change them, but I've struggled to do so.

So while I think it's true that people do tend to rise (or fall) to meet the expectations of others, I don't think that's unlimited. A kid with a 90 IQ isn't going to excel at calculus just because everyone tells him he can and pumps up his self-esteem. A group of people who were living in a matriarchal village and raiding the next-door village for food and women aren't necessarily going to have what it takes to be good suburbanites just because you move them to Minneapolis and give them houses and cars. There are limits.

If you assume Vox is right about the 1000-years-to-civilization thing, then it would make sense that American blacks would be somewhere in the middle of that journey, perhaps capable of maintaining the standards of civilization while surrounded by good examples and held to high expectations, but not really having it internalized enough yet to maintain it on their own against negative forces like the welfare state.

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 10:45 AM  

I hope not, but I am a bit concerned about the fact that our written records only go back about 8,000 years. It is entirely possible that the cycle is longer than we realize and goes all the way down to zero. There are some hints of this in archeology and the written record.

If you have them handy, please provide links or search terms for these hints.

thx

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 10:47 AM  

My experience, based on dogs, horses and humans is this: training trumps genetics every single time, without fail. [....]

You CAN make a formidable guard dog out of most breeds.


You've contradicted yourself. If it's only true of "most" breeds, then training doesn't trump genetics "every time," just some of the time -- when the genetics allow for it.

My own dog is a hunter and a digger, without a speck of retriever in her. Throw her a ball or stick, and she might bring it back once, but throw it again and she'll find something else to do. Now it's possible that I could have trained her to play fetch if I really worked at it, but I never bothered; I trained her to her strengths. If I really want a dog that plays fetch, I'll get a retriever.

Applying that to ethnic groups: it's possible that different groups could live together peacefully IF the dominant group forces high standards on the other groups, like me forcing my dog to learn a trick for which she has no aptitude and practicing with her regularly to make sure she doesn't forget. But how long is that likely to last? How vigilant does the dominant society have to be, to make sure it never lets up on the others? It sounds like a lot of work, and probably doomed to failure in the long run -- which, if history is any guide, isn't that long, maybe a couple generations at most.

It just sounds like a lot of effort for no particular purpose, which would be unnecessary if the groups went their separate ways and agreed to be good neighbors instead of living together.

Blogger Marissa April 02, 2014 10:59 AM  

You CAN make a formidable guard dog out of most breeds.


Cail made the better argument, but I'm going to hop onto one of his posts. You can make a chihuahua or a lhasa apso into a decent guard dog (in that he will attack and defend the home with all he has) but these dogs are unfit for such a task. So as Cail said, why try to force something which is not in its nature?

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 11:01 AM  

"But how long is that likely to last? How vigilant does the dominant society have to be, to make sure it never lets up on the others? It sounds like a lot of work,"

Moreover, why SHOULD anybody have to be that vigilant, or want to? What do they get out of it? What if it's only the other groups that get something out of it, and the host group gets nothing but more work and headaches? Why, it's almost as if somebody else wanted this to happen to the host group, and schemed to inflict their desires on it.

Oh, wait, hold on a sec, it turns out somebody DID....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Celler

Blogger The Original Hermit April 02, 2014 11:22 AM  

"The Romans were highly civilized, but engaged in some exceedingly savage practices. The Mayans and the Aztecs had reasonably high levels of civilized organization, but their beliefs and practices were savage to the core."

I don't see any problem or contradiction in civilized societies also having savage forms of entertainment such as the Roman coliseums. Regardless of level of civilization, men have testosterone and release through watching bloodsport allows us to funnel our aggression, if not towards something constructive, at least to something that's not personally destructive. There will always be outliers willing to put there body on the line (if slaves are in short supply), whether imported barbarians or free men doing so for whatever personal reasons.

Blogger James Jones April 02, 2014 11:32 AM  

Off to kindle to buy a Kratman book. What is a good first choice?

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 11:33 AM  

@ cail: Moral relativism has denigrated minorities' ability to internalize "white" standards. We no longer believe in objective right and wrong (or often even objective reality); it's all a question of experience and perspective.

So blacks are no longer taught that certain behaviors are simply wrong, they're white standards that don't particularly apply to them.

When they don't think any whites are listening, blacks can be just as harsh on the savage behavior of other blacks as anyone. However, the moment a white person enters the room it becomes a question of "us vs. them" and "how dare that white guy judge one of US".

This is intended to foster a sense of community, but its result is to subjectivize all moral standards, for the black savage knows that when push comes to shove, "his people" have his back against the white oppressors.

When a community refuses to believe in any objective moral standards, it will remain forever unable to pass wisdom onto subsequent generations. The "dogs" have been trained to see anybody attempting to civilize them as an alien enemy, which means they'll be infinitely harder to train.

Martel

Anonymous civilServant April 02, 2014 11:46 AM  

civilization is the consequence of a centuries-long eugenic program that eventually, and inevitably, transforms itself into a dysgenic program.

One would think they are exactly the same process. At what point is the eugenic program transformed into a dysgenic program?

In any group with more than two individuals there will obviously be those who exceed the mean, but that is totally irrelevant in this context.

You have held that women should be disenfranchised because of their inate behavior. When asked if a woman who behaves atypically such as Thatcher should also be disenfranchised you answered yes because she is a woman. So. Is exceeding the mean ever relevant?

Anonymous civilServant April 02, 2014 11:49 AM  

yes because she is a woman.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 11:53 AM  

At what point is the eugenic program transformed into a dysgenic program?

Presumably when the society gets sufficiently wealthy to cease doing what made it that way.

Is exceeding the mean ever relevant?

Probably not for public policy purposes. It's always relevant to the individual.

Anonymous VD April 02, 2014 11:53 AM  

What is a good first choice?

Big Boys Don't Cry.

Blogger frigger611 April 02, 2014 11:53 AM  

I've read that "African-Americans" possess, generally speaking, 15%-20% European genetic ancestry.

If there is indeed a marked difference between the intellectual abilities of African-Americans v. true Africans, then it would appear that the best thing that can be done with savage tribes is to allow the infusion of some Euro genetics.

An idea too uncomfortable for anyone to consider.

Blogger James Dixon April 02, 2014 11:55 AM  

> What is a good first choice?

Do you want to support the author or see what you like?

If the former, go to Amazon. If the latter, go to Baen and download "A Desert Called Peace" and "Caliphate". They're free. Then you can make a more informed buying decision.

http://www.baenebooks.com/s-66-tom-kratman.aspx

Anonymous Anonymous April 02, 2014 11:57 AM  

Moreover, why SHOULD anybody have to be that vigilant, or want to? What do they get out of it?

I know what you mean, but there is an answer: diversity. That's what decent middle Americans think they get out of it: the ability to order Chinese food or go to a jazz club. They seem to think that the only alternative to what we have now is a mayonnaise-flavored society where you see nothing but white people all day, every restaurant serves steak and potatoes, and the radio plays the Osmonds non-stop.

Also, they get to pat themselves on the back for maintaining the "melting pot" myth that they were taught is central to being American.

Blogger James Jones April 02, 2014 12:09 PM  

Thanks James Dixon. From what I've read here in other threads, I'm sure I'll like Tom's books.
But besides that, it's the same as buying Vox's books - I know I'll enjoy then , but I also get a small feeling of satisfaction from supporting an author that the leftists detest.
Off to Amazon for Big Boys Don't Cry.

Anonymous Marellus April 02, 2014 12:13 PM  

I hope not, but I am a bit concerned about the fact that our written records only go back about 8,000 years. It is entirely possible that the cycle is longer than we realize and goes all the way down to zero. There are some hints of this in archeology and the written record.

You really know how to cheer me up, don't you ?

When it comes to the Drang Nicht Western of Africans, consider what their oral histories says :

Apparently, a very long time ago, they were invaded by a white skinned tribe, called the Ma-iti. They came up the Zambezi river with a bunch of ships. They told the locals that they had their butts kicked out of their home country, and fled to here.

I wonder if this might be Hyxos/Amalekites of Egypt. A non-traditional source - yep, it's Immanuel Velikovsky - said they were kicked out by a combined effort from both the Egyptians and Isrealites.

Now these guys were smart - they didn't conquer the Africans by rape and pillage, oh no, they were sneaky.

They gave one tribe lots of swords and whatnots, which in that time was pretty high-tech weaponry for them, and sent them merrily on their way to rape and pillage to their hearts' contentment.

So when this tribe was finally the top dogs of all they beheld, the Ma-iti just marched in, defeated their armies, and supplanted them. And after a long time, the Ma-iti were eventually wiped out as well.

Which means the Africans were exposed to the best technology of antiquity for quite some time, but they never capitalized on it.

I wonder why.

(... now now Mister Hong, I knowses what yours are thinkings. You mustses make sures that big ship with lotsas guns and rockets that got plundered on some African beach, she's not your fault.

Yes Yes Yes Mister Hong, but when you say navigator was former North Korean Rocket Scientist, for which CIA say "please please you get him out, we not sure he knows difference between Seoul and Seattle and we send you lots and lots NSA approved photos of Obama's testicles"

What ? ... You not can see thems ?

Is that why they send lots and lots then ?

Now Now Mister Hong, what you say when lots and lots of people started the starts to dyings from thems guns and rockets ?

No No No Mister Hong, you cannot sayings 'but the manual says the noisy end must pointings away from operator before you triggerings'.

No No No Mister Hong that is bettings you becomes rascist. That's 'rascist' Mister Hong, not 'raises' Mister Hong.

No money is involved Mister Hong.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 02, 2014 12:35 PM  

"it would appear that the best thing that can be done with savage tribes is to allow the infusion of some Euro genetics."

No, the best thing to do with savage tribes is to leave them alone in their home environment and let them develop at their own pace and to their own tastes. Oh, and to not let them come live here. If they don't live here, then we don't have to worry about up-ending our own lives trying to manage them.

Why do we think we have to "do" anything with people on the other side of the world? Leave them be.

Blogger rycamor April 02, 2014 12:46 PM  

VD April 02, 2014 7:59 AM
If one set of circumstances inevitably leads to another, is this like a sine-wave moving up and down from zero ?

I hope not, but I am a bit concerned about the fact that our written records only go back about 8,000 years. It is entirely possible that the cycle is longer than we realize and goes all the way down to zero. There are some hints of this in archeology and the written record.


Maybe it is something along the lines of multiple sine waves of different frequencies which happen to coincide every once in awhile.

So long time-preference and diligence leads to wealth, which leads to decadence and eventual decline back to savagery. It almost seems inescapable, in that it occurs in all sorts of insidious ways that we don't even grasp until too late.

It's interesting that young female marriage and childbearing leads to genetically superior babies, along with the support mechanism to flourish, and that this then produces a rich society where women delay marriage and childbearing until the genetics begin to drift back to the mean. I wonder how many other mechanisms are at play.

Take for example the genetic effects of our industrial culture. Many of them are just now starting to surface. Rates of autism have multiplied alarmingly in the past couple decades. Recently it was found that these are linked to other genetic infirmities, including genital malformations. These were found to be the highest among the richest, most educated segments of America. The theory is now that wealthier people are more likely to purchase products that contain environmental toxins, such as diet, cleaning, beauty products, gardening insecticides, etc... It's like a built-in civilizational damper. We inevitably become our own worst enemies.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 02, 2014 12:48 PM  

It is entirely possible that the cycle is longer than we realize and goes all the way down to zero. There are some hints of this in archeology and the written record.

Sure would be nice to have a better quality of Crazy Eddie than we've been getting lately.


I think the real question boils down to who is making decisions. There are two anti-civilizational forces in human nature - short term thinking and outright sociopaths. If you can mostly exclude both categories from making society-wide decisions, you'll do fine. The challenge is, it seems most methods for weeding out one encourage the other.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby April 02, 2014 12:56 PM  

You can blame the sacking of Rome by the Gauls on Guardian of the Peace Fabius Ambustus. Even the Senate and the Fecials agreed to hand him over to the Gauls for breaching the peace, however, he got wind of it and fled. International law and such.

Blogger frigger611 April 02, 2014 12:58 PM  

Scoobius, I agree with you 100%.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. I only meant it as an observation. That is, if you are an African bush-man (or bush-woman) then your offspring will likely perform above the tribal norm, intellectually, if you could find a spouse who somehow possessed some Euro ancestry.

I've noticed this is actually common with modern blacks in America. They don't admit it to whites, but they often seek "lighter-skinned" mates. Perhaps because the perception is that the child will encounter less "racism" throughout life, or perhaps due to something else, (never to be admitted). Either way, it is an attempt to "improve the stock." And everyone does this.

In a related note, I notice that in American history, when a white European somehow was part of a native AmerIndian tribe, he typically would rise to leadership. (Blue Jacket in Ohio, and Osceola of the Seminoles was thought to be half-Scot). There were perhaps more. Anyone know of any?

Again, just observing, not advocating that anything be "done."

Blogger Marissa April 02, 2014 1:02 PM  

Perhaps because the perception is that the child will encounter less "racism" throughout life, or perhaps due to something else, (never to be admitted).

Physical attractiveness on the part of lighter-skinned women. Better resource provision on the part of lighter-skinned men (though this is less common, see first sentence).

Anonymous Jack April 02, 2014 1:07 PM  

One has to wonder the extent to which we can explain persistent White European antisemitism to genetic factors or if it's merely a failing of the culture.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 02, 2014 1:14 PM  

The question of nature vs nurture is answered immediately once one has more than one kid.

All that does it prove that individuals do, indeed, have a nature, and that's it's not so simple to ascribe that nature to their genetic heritage.

One can also look at, say, a family with several kids who all turned out well--upstanding, self-sufficient, productive members of society in spite of their marked individual variation in nature, and a family with several kids who are in and out of trouble with the law, prison, welfare and whatnot and come to exactly the opposite conclusion; that nurture is the defining factor.

Anonymous Ostar April 02, 2014 1:25 PM  

JartStar
The records probably only go back 8000 years because about 12,000 years ago the last ice age ended. That's why some people put Noah's Ark 30,000-50,000 years ago.

The sea levels rose about 120M (not all at once) as the last Ice Age ended. Even today the majority of the world's population lives along sea coasts or in river valleys, so it's entirely feasible that any number of ancient civilizations collapsed to ruin and barbarism as their cities and farmlands were swallowed up. Leaving only legends (and in a number of places like off India, submerged cities).

Anonymous Jack April 02, 2014 1:50 PM  

"The chimpanzee in the Whitehouse is gutting the economy and people are still making excuses for him. His wife and entourage go on expensive vacations while middle class families can't make ends meet."

Absurd in every respect. The state of the economy, which is decidedly improving under the current administration, is not driven by the very meager efforts that the federal government have undertaken since 2008.

Your view of the impact of the administration on the economy is juvenile at best.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter April 02, 2014 2:14 PM  

I never knew about Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/why-i-wont-be-a-witness-in-the-new-jersey-ex-gay-trial/

Anonymous Rob Lee April 02, 2014 2:47 PM  

"The point you raise is additional evidence in support of the conclusion that our civilization has passed its eugenic peak and is no longer capable of civilizing its inhabitants, but is actually decivilizing them."

It should also be noted that importing additional millions of uneducated peasants from countries significantly behind on the civilizational scale does nothing but accelerate this process.

Anonymous Heh April 02, 2014 2:48 PM  

Why do we think we have to "do" anything with people on the other side of the world? Leave them be.

What, and allow the ChiComs to exploit the rich human and mineral resources of Africa?

Oh wait, never mind. Go to it, China! Africa, too, deserves a Great Leap Forward!

Anonymous Steve April 02, 2014 3:34 PM  

"You take a white kid, drill him in basketball 24/7/365 - and you will see white men that CAN jump - as high as higher than most negroes."

I'm sorry,but I have to take issue with such a claim. This is equivalent to saying that you can make a woman into a boxer or weightlifter who could hang with young Arnold Schwarzenegger or Muhammed Ali through hypnosis or something. It's a fantasy.


It's simply self-evident that your statement is false.

Blogger James Dixon April 02, 2014 3:38 PM  

> The state of the economy, which is decidedly improving under the current administration,

Not anywhere that I've seen. And I've been in several states over the past few years.

Anonymous Heaviside April 02, 2014 5:05 PM  

An atrocity is not something to be ashamed of! Earthly life is suffering. Atrocities are the measure of one's willpower, and the strength of belief in one's own cause. Napoleon said that it's the cause, and not the death, that makes a martyr. Every peasant you gun down in a ditch is a witness to the glory of whatever you are fighting for. Art demands sacrifice! The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are. Power is only won through the purity of the will to bring sacrifices! World-historicity flows through the veins of those who are willing to stand outside of time, beyond good and evil, and execute with fanatical ruthlessness whatever their designs might be.

The Right in this country needs to establish a revolutionary vanguard party that installs itself via a military coup during a time of crisis and imposes its will in a top-down fashion on the masses, instead of doing this populist get-out-the-vote nonsense. Democracy always was a sham, always will be, and if we don't have a crisis, we can always manufacture one.

Anonymous sawtooth April 02, 2014 6:07 PM  

@Steve
Exactly. You can take a kid and drill him in basketball 24/7/365 and you will have a better basketball player then before, yet still lacks the leaping ability to slam dunk.

Leapers and sprinters are basically born, not made.

Same is true with certain aptitudes in the mental/intellectual sphere.

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 7:54 PM  

That's insufficiently succinct.

Educate the Gay Away


Alternatively: Black is the new gay

Blogger Longstreet April 02, 2014 8:04 PM  

[quote]
What is a good first choice?

Big Boys Don't Cry.[/quote]

Yep. I haven't paid much attention to science fiction in years, but Tom Kratman's participation in these threads have sufficiently piqued my interest. Bought Big Boys Don't Cry this morning. It was excellent.

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 8:04 PM  

Are there indeed a tribe in some Mountain-stan who worships Alexander The Great, and is awaiting his return with a concomitant set of prophecies ?

Ask Peachy Carrnahan or Daniel Dravoit

Blogger Longstreet April 02, 2014 8:05 PM  

Argh. I never use the right code for this forum!

Blogger Longstreet April 02, 2014 8:06 PM  

Stilicho

Blogger Longstreet April 02, 2014 8:13 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Longstreet April 02, 2014 8:16 PM  

This
"The state of the economy, which is decidedly improving under the current administration, is not driven by the very meager efforts that the federal government have undertaken since 2008"

followed by this
"Your view of the impact of the administration on the economy is juvenile at best."

is funny, in a sad and pathetic sort of fashion.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 9:09 PM  

"Well, let's see. Let's assume that's true. So, the Civil Rights Act gets passed in what, 1964 or so? And within four years (viz., by 1968) they were very busy, not blossoming with new-found freedom, but rather, rioting and burning down every city where they had numbers, forming insane bloodthirsty militant groups, and raping every white girl they could get their hands on."

Gee, that kinda reminds me of white upper middle class college students rioting, all over the western world, as a matter of fact, and without even the excuse of the civil rights act...

APOS, when _everybody_ is rioting, everybody that we can call a "68er," anyway, then there is probably something else going on. Why, after all, should blacks have been exempted from the effects of the worst generation?

The difference, though, is that whites got over it and Jerry Rubin became a Wall St. broker. Blacks, on the other hand, had liberalism inflicted on them...

Anonymous Obvious April 02, 2014 9:28 PM  

Seems to me there's one of them there "Ignorant half savages" in Italy...

Anonymous Stilicho April 02, 2014 9:47 PM  

Yes, Longstreet?

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 10:03 PM  

"I know what he means, Josh. I'm saying what I mean. Liberalism of the welfare and basket of goodies type cannot be divorced from the voting rights and legal equality type. The latter leads to the former."

I disagree, Marissa. That we married the two sets, or allowed liberals to conduct a shotgun wedding, doesn't mean they had to be married or that they cannot be divorced.

It's probably worth laying out my position a little more clearly. Skin color, as should be obvious from my choice of mate, makes no difference to me whatsoever. A few IQ points more or less? I am skeptical of IQ testing; I have reason to be. The best RTO I had in the Army was a kid so "dumb" he barely escaped being made a cook. He never made a mistake. Never, never, not ever, never. I think genetics matters, but it is not dispositive. I count - rather like King - content of character very highly. My obligations, in no particular order, run to family, to friends - who may be other than US citizens, to my soldiers, to US citizens, in _real_ social compact or comity with me, even if I personally detest them. I have no necessary loyalty to any race or color. My primary loyalty is, after God, who is American, to the United States.

Conversely, I have no loyalty to and place no value on black or hispanic separatists, within the US. I would happily shoot them or give the order to do so. I accept to a limited degree neo-confederates because the circumstance may well be arising where the US, as is, cannot be saved and a fragment is all that can be saved. But I am not what you would call a huge fan of secession for its own sake, for the romance of the thing, or because someone is a spoiled and ignorant brat who just wants his way no matter the cost to others.

I don't want legally imposed segregation any more than I want legally imposed integration. I don't care if people marry across race lines, per se. I mean, for an intellectual exercise, imagine a US where, poof, suddenly, everyone is so interbred that we're all half a shade darker than the white norm, [maybe] IQ has dropped 2 points, to the extent that that matters to some, and WE HAVE NO MORE RACIAL PROBLEMS AND LIBERALS CAN'T DO WHAT THEY DO BEST ANYMORE IN THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN. Brothers, sister, it ain't bad, ya know.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 02, 2014 10:26 PM  

Though, actually, IQ average would probably stay about the same...Asians and Jews.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet April 02, 2014 11:03 PM  

Come on, Vox. You've admitted you don't know what the genetic markers are. Now you want to claim cultural differences prove there's genetic difference? As I've said before: one wonders if you think regional language difference proves the exist of subspecies too. Whether or not you speak more than one language or not (which you've noted in the past) is irrelevant. Difference proves difference.

Your race posts are little more than hypothesis, hardly proof of anything.

Anonymous Ted April 02, 2014 11:23 PM  

Meanwhile in New Orleans:

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/03/whats_wrong_with_poor_black_fo.html

Anonymous Snowflake April 02, 2014 11:33 PM  

**Now, in answer to Truth's question, and contra Tom's position, my observation is that you cannot possibly separate culture and genetics. It is logical to conclude, and it has been repeatedly observed, that cultural differences are derived from genetics.**

If true, that's only true on a large (rather than individual), and long term scale, and regarding certain 'rough' aspects of the culture. Otherwise, feral children would be able to talk, no matter that they were raised by animals, and Chinese children adopted by Americans would all become Buddhists (or whatever religion they are in China) rather than Christians.

And, btw, your post also implies that if you forcibly alter the culture of a group of people, and impose whatever controls and supports are necessary to keep the alteration in place, after a while it will alter their genetics such that if you have imposed an iq 115 culture on an iq 85 people, you would expect their IQ to go up after a while.

Anonymous Snowflake April 02, 2014 11:44 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote: **I've already commented on my skepticism toward standardized testing and IQ testing. That doesn't mean that I don't think g exists; I just doubt our ability to measure it well. (I will not be crushed if nobody believes it, but, folks, I can say that from a position of considerable strength.)**

The IQ test seems to be skewed towards certain types of abilities. I do well on it, because I'm good at language and math. My boyfriend on the other hand doesn't do nearly so well, but I question the assumption that he is therefore stupid. He's a musical genius, who can remember any musical score from any movie, pick out one instrument in an orchestra and tell you if it is real or a synthesizer. *I* can't do that, and it's not something they test for on any IQ tests I know of.

**But far worse, and perhaps even more in accord, there was an intervening event here that wrecked our blacks, most of them, who were probably genetically intellectually superior to most African blacks (possible exceptions or equals being Ibo and Ethiope) and were doing fairly well, really. And that disaster, that showa, that holocaust wasn't slavery, it was liberalism. Liberalism destroyed the fairly functional culture they had. Does that show up in genetics? After 3-4 generations I would be surprised if it did not. How many superior blacks were enticed away to honkyland? Shitloads. What did that do to the gene pool left behind and abandoned? Nothing good.**

I agree that liberalism had a bad effect, but I think slavery probably had some effect on the genetics of blacks. The reason why is that blacks that were too intelligent may have been killed by their masters as being 'uppity'. Regarding your statement of the smartest blacks being enticed away by 'honkyland', this would not change the genetics of blacks so much as it would simply seperate blacks of different genetics into different areas. But they would both still exist. Regarding 3-4 generations being enough to change genetics... Dmitri Belyaev got some pretty drastic changes in fox genetics in 5 generations.

Anonymous Snowflake April 02, 2014 11:49 PM  

Kratman: I have a pet theory that the genetic dice MAY be slightly 'loaded', such that there would be a very slightly higher probability towards mutations that favor survival in the current environment. (which does not necessarily mean mutations humans would favor, if stupidity better enables survival than intelligence, then stupidity would be favored). I can envision an experiment which could test this, but it would be a pretty elaborate sort of experiment, cost a lot of money, people, land, and time to carry out.

Anonymous Snowflake April 03, 2014 12:01 AM  

**Basic logic fail. If the capacity for innovation is not distributed evenly in individuals, it cannot possibly be distributed evenly across groups.**

Not necessarily true. Suppose 1 in 10 white people are 'innovators'. Then the capacity for innovation is not evenly distributed among white individuals. However, if 1 in 10 blacks are also innovators, then the capacity for innovation WOULD be evenly distributed between whites and blacks. That isn't to say it will be, it could be that 1 in 2 blacks are innovators, or 1 in 100.

But you could substitute any groups you likes, such as catholics and lutherans, or blonds and brunettes, and the fact that only some people in one of the groups are innovators says absolutely nothing about whether the percentage of people in the second group who are innovators is greater, less than, or equal to the percentage of innovators in the first group.

Anonymous Snowflake April 03, 2014 12:35 AM  

**The Mayans and the Aztecs had reasonably high levels of civilized organization, but their beliefs and practices were savage to the core.**

I would question exactly how 'savage' they were. The Aztecs believed that the sun would go out, if they did not periodically perform human sacrifices to the sun. Just as a thought experiment, if we either had scientific evidence that the sun would go out if we didn't kill a certain number of people in a certain way every year, or if God appeared in full God regalia on top of a Mt. Everest and announced to the world that if we didn't kill a certain number of people every year he would put out the sun, I imagine we would be doing the same thing as the Aztecs in very short order.

If you want to argue that the Aztecs were doing savage things without evidence... then you're probably arguing against every religion in the world including Christianity.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 2:00 AM  

"Black communities had successful marriages, broken marriages, adequate schools, hierarchies based on - wait for it! - the color of one's skin and his business success, functioning economies and entertainments that suited the people who sought enjoyment."

I should have caught this and commented earlier, Cran.

Ever stop to think that the preference for lighter skin is very nearly a human cultural universal. It exists even among African blacks. But why though? Because even blacks tan darker, and lighter skin meant not having to work in the fields, under the sun, or having slaves or servants to carry a parasol over you if you must go out. Thus, it is a marker of wealth and class, even within groups.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 2:03 AM  

"I agree that liberalism had a bad effect, but I think slavery probably had some effect on the genetics of blacks. The reason why is that blacks that were too intelligent may have been killed by their masters as being 'uppity'. "

Snowflake:

I doubt this apppied here, at what a slave cost. And I am given to understand that there was a tendency is Africa to sell off more intelligent, hence more troublesome, slaves to the Arab and White slavers.

Anonymous Stilicho April 03, 2014 6:11 AM  

The reason why is that blacks that were too intelligent may have been killed by their masters as being 'uppity

Along with the uppity horses, cows, and other chattel.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 03, 2014 8:35 AM  

Regarding 3-4 generations being enough to change genetics... Dmitri Belyaev got some pretty drastic changes in fox genetics in 5 generations.

My father once articulated--only semi-seriously--the thought that Napolean took the better part of an entire generation of the best and the brightest French young men and got them killed in Russia (and elsewhere) and that ever since, the French have been wallowing in the shallow end of the gene-pool, struggling to get back to where they were a hundred and fifty some odd years ago.

The more I think about this, the more I think he may actually have been on to something. Genetic "shocks" that affect--in aggregate--the entire population over the course of a fairly short time frame--say a generation or two--don't seem very unlikely to me at all, and it doesn't necessarily take much extraordinary stimulus to kick them off.

Blogger Marissa April 03, 2014 9:28 AM  

Whiteness is preferred because it's easier to identify defects. Steve Sailer has some good posts on this. The "class" argument has always stemmed from Marxist types so I take that with a grain of salt.

Joshua Dual, I think many wars are ways to cull the male population of both desirable genes (competition for apex males) and undesirable genes ("useless mouths").

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 9:45 AM  

I don't believe that for a second, Marissa.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 9:48 AM  

Note that in the west today a tan is generally preferred. So it can hide defects? One doubts it's any more than an indicator of wealth sufficient for vacations at warm and sunny beaches.

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 03, 2014 9:52 AM  

Right, tan-ness is the new whiteness, and for the same reason; it's a cultural marker for wealth and success.

Anonymous Jim C. April 03, 2014 11:14 AM  

Paler skin has always been considered more attractive in women, no matter the race. And white girls have always been regarded as particularly beautiful, even back when white societies were anything but wealthy and successful.

There's an interesting post with plenty of links about this very subject over here.

Blogger Marissa April 03, 2014 11:56 AM  

There are lots of dysgenic preferences these days--sluttiness, older women, sackless men, etc. I fail to see how that cancels out 99% of human history.

And yes, Tom, a tan hides defects. I wouldn't expect you to know this, but it's a standard piece of advice in any women's magazine to 1) temporarily stem acne problems (dries out skin), 2) hide cellulite and other skin irregularities like moles and birthmarks, 3) enhance shape. Why do you think bodybuilders tan themselves up so much for competition?

Trying to find defects on darker skin is like trying to find mold on rye bread.

Blogger Iowahine April 03, 2014 12:43 PM  

Cranberry, Toni Morrison wrote Sula.

Anonymous VD April 03, 2014 12:45 PM  

Right, tan-ness is the new whiteness, and for the same reason; it's a cultural marker for wealth and success.

You're about ten years out of date....

Anonymous Heh April 03, 2014 12:50 PM  

The reason why is that blacks that were too intelligent may have been killed by their masters as being 'uppity

Because the smart ones would be too stupid to keep their mouths shut and cozen their way into a cushy job as a house negro!

Blogger Joshua Dyal April 03, 2014 1:36 PM  

You're about ten years out of date....

And at least twenty years out of style, so that would figure...

Acid washed jeans and popped collars are still cool, right?

Blogger Harold April 03, 2014 2:20 PM  

"A society where women have children at an average age of 18 will have genetically superior children to those produced in a society in which women have children at an average age of 35."

Not so sure this holds entirely true.

The AVERAGE black woman in the US has her first child before age 18. The AVERAGE non-college educated white woman somewhere between 18-21. The AVERAGE college educated woman somewhere more then 23. Average lifespan of blacks<average lifespan non-college educated<average lifespan college educated. There was an interesting fruit fly experiment where in just a handful of generation they were able to double the lifespan of fruit flies by not selecting from the longest lived, but by separating the sexes for longer periods of time in each successive generation before breeding.

My family tends towards longer then average lifespan. Traced back 5 generations, I have ONE female direct line ancestor with first child before age 20. With an increased ability to swiftly research family trees thanks to the internet and ancestry.com along with other sites, it would make an interesting PhD study to determine if human lifespans were governed by the same rules that fruit fly lifespans are governed by. I'll bet they are.

Increased autism seems to be more about associative mating then age. Two engineers are much more likely to have an autistic child then an insurance exec and a secretary. Probably not too many examples of mathematician couples, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an even higher rate of autism amongst their offspring then engineer's offspring.

Anonymous Eric Ashley April 03, 2014 3:58 PM  

Song of Solomon talked about how the girl felt bad that she was tanned.

Ice Centuries, not 'Last Ice Age'. No such thing.

Human identity and cultural identity tend to resemble multiple choice questions. We have more freedom than we realize, but that's for another day. You or your society chooses Door One, Two, or Three. Each of those doors leads to a largely different and new set of multiple choice questions. You keep making the wrong choices, and eventually you find yourself in a place where almost all decisions are bad.

One advantage of the Great Leader Theory of History is that the GL gives his society another choice, so its not just A,B,or C, but it could be D as well.

Its been asked 'why should the civilized majority enforce standards?'. Ask the monks of Europe for their view on Vikings.

Anonymous Truth April 03, 2014 4:24 PM  

"Truth, do you assert that there is not a single black individual in the U.S.A. who is an ignorant half-savage?"

Not because of their genetics. There may be savage, ignorant, or both in the black community, but I don't think their genetics play a role, at least not in terms of race.

I've worked in charities that involved time in a neighborhood of section 8 housing, or what some would call a ghetto. It may come as a surprise that this atheist was working with a Christian charity at the time. We weren't stupid. We knew that we needed to be careful and we were. Still, we came face-to-face with people who would do us harm or steal from us. Most of which were black, but considering the neighborhood was mostly black that was no surprise.

Those people were poor, very poor. Most of them were honest, friendly, and even helpful. Many of them wanted to know what they could do to repay us, they ended up helping in other charitable outreach programs.

So I won't deny there's problems with crime in predominantly black ghettos. But I don't feel it's a racial or genetic trait. Part of it is cultural. But even that cultural element comes from poverty. These are large groups of individuals who are desperate. Crime springs from that desperation. And it's easy to convince people to join you in crime when the alternative doesn't look much better.

As a comparison, in my current neck of the woods, also Mr. Kratman's, there's not many all-black neighborhoods. But there are mostly-white trailer parks. Some of them are rather massive and filled with poor white people. The crime rate there is much higher than the surrounding areas. Do I have a number to back that up? No, but in the decades I've lived here I don't recall any murders or drug-related violence taking place any where but the trailer parks.

Of course, I'm sure that poor black outnumber poor whites and that poor black use more welfare than poor whites. But why?

Blacks as a population have had equal rights for about 50 years now. That means that most adult blacks had parents who grew up pre-civil rights. There parents likely had no real education and no inheritance of any kind to pass down. Why adults are less likely to be faced with the same difficulty. There's plenty of other generational issues as well that date back to pre-civil rights and slavery.

I agree with Mr. Kratman's rule that we shouldn't feel responsible for slavery. But we at least have to acknowledge that it happened and the effects are still being felt.

And when I spoke of atrocities, Caesar was a little further back than I'd imagined. How about East Timor, Rwanda, Sierra Leone etc... Yes, I know, those weren't all by white folks. The point is, one race thinking their genetically superior to another has never ended well. And yes, I know that Vox claims that it depends on the "metric selected." But savage vs. non-savage debate, it seems pretty clear that he's saying whites are superior to blacks.

As for my motives... I'm not trying to draw a wedge. I'm just trying to learn more about Mr. Kratman. I'd offer to sit down over coffee (or a beer) and discuss things with him but I doubt he'd take me up on that offer.

Would I love for Tom Kratman to say, "Vox Day is an asshole." ? Of course, but I don't expect it. I'm just wondering if Mr. Kratman is not quite the hateful worm of a human that Vox is. Because he seems not to be. And again, I'd really like to have another local author to read.

That's all I care to say for now.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 6:15 PM  

Please make the case, Marissa, or cite to something that makes the case.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 6:20 PM  

"Of course, I'm sure that poor black outnumber poor whites and that poor black use more welfare than poor whites. But why?"

No, poor blacks do not outnumber poor whites. Neither do they use more welfare. (Unless things have changed _radically_, anyway, since last I looked.) As a _per_capita_ matter they do, but not in sheer numbers.

Anonymous Truth April 03, 2014 6:50 PM  

"As a _per_capita_ matter they do, but not in sheer numbers."

Just looked it up, it's damned close to even on welfare. In 2008 whites had the slight edge in pure numbers but now it seems blacks have a slight edge. Interestingly, a higher percentage of poor whites use government benefits than poor blacks though.

Anonymous Truth April 03, 2014 6:51 PM  

Either way, I don't see it affecting my argument.

Blogger Tom Kratman April 03, 2014 7:20 PM  

It doesn't, because the line I quoted wasn't really central to your argument. It just struck me as wrong - indeed, the kind of propaganda one might find on Stormfront, say - and I would be very suspicious of stats saying that it's inverted.

Anonymous Captain America April 06, 2014 8:44 PM  

According to this source (2014), 38.8% of whites and 39.8% of blacks are on welfare out of 12,800,000 million people. Unless those percentages is based on the TOTAL number of people on assistance, which is close to 65,000,000.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts